3 ms·
It's hard to tell where this author is coming from. The three main assumptions you have to make for AGI are (via Sam Harris): 1. Intelligence is information pr
by rojobuffalo 9y ago
It's hard to tell where this author is coming from. The three main assumptions you have to make for AGI are (via Sam Harris):
1. Intelligence is information processing.
2. We will continue to improve our intelligent machines.
3. We are not near the peak of intelligence.
The author's first counterpoint is:
> Intelligence is not a single dimension, so “smarter than humans” is a meaningless concept.
Intelligence is information processing so "smarter than humans" just means better information processing: higher rate, volume, and quality of input and output. Aren't some humans smarter than others? And isn't that a power that can be abused or used for good? We don't have to worry about it being like us and smarter; it just has to be smart enough to outsmart any human.
He then talks about generality like it's a structural component that no one has been able to locate. It's a property and just means transferrable learning across domains. We're so young in our understanding of our own intelligence architecture, it's ridiculous to build a claim around there being no chance of implementing generality.
This statement is also incredibly weak:
> There is no other physical dimension in the universe that is infinite, as far as science knows so far...There is finite space and time.
There is evidence that matter might be able to be created out of nothing which would mean space can go on forever. We might only be able to interact with finite space, but that isn't to say all of nature is constrained to finite dimensions.
Even still, he doesn't make sense of why we need infinite domains. You only need to reach a point where a programmer AI is marginally better at programming AIs than any human or team of humans. Then we would no longer be in the pilot's seat.
- goatlover 9y ago> Intelligence is information processing That's a claim. What is your support for this? Computers in the 1940s could process information. Were they intelligent? > just means better information processing: higher rate, volume, and quality of input and output. Computers have been able to perform information processing better than humans from the beginning, thus the reason for their creation. Information processors are tools to extend human intelligence.
- AnimalMuppet 9y agoI think that there's an additional problem with that claim: the converse may be false. Even if "intelligence is information processing", that does not mean that "information processing is intelligence". This is, I think, what you were trying to say with your point about computers in the 1940s. Sure, they could add really fast. Did that make them intelligent? Or is intelligence, even if it is information processing, is it a specific kind of information processing? If so, do we even know what kind of information processing it is? I am inclined to say no, we don't. But then, I'm not sure that I buy that intelligence is (just) information processing, either.
- rojobuffalo 9y agoThe exact quote is "Intelligence is a product of information processing in physical systems." It's the scientific definition rather than the colloquial definition.
- goatlover 9y agoThat's a philosophical assumption of what intelligence is. It's based on the metaphor that thought is calculation, and computers are thinking by virtue of manipulating symbols, and human brains are therefore doing the same thing in wetware.
- rojobuffalo 9y agoThere isn't any counter evidence at this point that it's a false premise.
- ptr_void 9y agoMore processing, more intelligence doesn't sound right. If I put a bunch of random reactive chemicals in a large beaker - I don't know what your "information" or "processing" would be there, but there should be a lot of that happening - I still wouldn't call it intelligent.
- rojobuffalo 9y agoIf you could implement a human brain in silicon, its information processing would be faster than its wet brain equivalent. It would think faster, learn faster, and therefore be more intelligent.
- ptr_void 9y agoWhether it would be faster seems unwarranted to me. But that's beyond the point. Why does faster mean more intelligent? Bubble sort in a fast computer vs quick sort ? Moving bath water with tea spoon very very fast vs using water buckets ?
- rojobuffalo 9y agoYou can perform the same routine in less time so learning can happen faster. We're not comparing spoons to buckets; we're comparing a bucket to a bucket, just one bucket tips and empties its contents faster.